Radiation

[JayUtah]

They can't stop curious people 100 years later from going to the Moon and discovering there are no human footprints there.

We do have "aerial" photos of the landing sites now.  There are things there.

Surely NASA would have realized that it would be pointless to try faking it.

Very difficult to do, and criminal if they got caught.  Failing to achieve some far-reaching daring objective is embarrassing.  But misappropriating tens of billions of taxpayer dollars is criminal.  And in American politics people don't just look the other way if they think they can prove fraud on that scale.  The government is certainly dysfunctional, but it's dysfunctional in a way that means anyone being caught lying about or faking a tax-funded project has a huge political bullseye painted on his backside.  The Russian word kompromat seems to apply here.

They believe other people are liars because they would lie when in the same situation.

And in other situations too.  The Moon hoax kingpins I've known -- White, Sibrel, Kaysing, Percy, Benett -- have all lied repeatedly.  I agree with your assessment:  they think they see lies everywhere and translate that into it being okay for them to lie too.

Only a dishonest person would believe trying to pull off a giant hoax that is 100% guaranteed to fail is the better alternative to telling the truth.

Keep in mind that the hoax would have had to involve the leading aerospace contractors in the United States, and in the rest of the world.  These are comprised of individual people who had already made names for themselves.  They have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by staking their reputations on a hoax.

[timfinch]

I find it very interesting not a single one you gentlemen stopped for a moment to consider the implications of my allegations.  You immediately broke out your preordained rebuttals and condemnations without ever engaging the core precept.  Consider for just one moment and that I am right.  Then what?  Play the devil's advocate or even better yet. refute the salient points of my concerns. Make me feel obligated to apologize for my insolence.  Rub my nose in it.

[Northern Lurker]

First things first: I have to admit I made a stupid brain fart and claimed cosmic rays to be gamma instead of particles. Sorry

https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/CucinottaKimChappell0512.pdf

Very nice, you can paste a link to a document. It would be much nicer if you could explain how that document supports your conclusion. You know, all regulars here are familiar with that study. It considers hazards to missions with durations from months to years and isn't fully applicaple to missions lasting only two weeks.

...but what do I know.  I am just a layman.

Why bring my character, intelligence and technical competence into question?  Simply disprove the assertion and be on your way.  This should not not be difficult because I obviously lack the the knowledge or competence to understand the complexities involved.  I have stated that current data indicates the apollo data is unrealistic.  Prove me wrong.

You represented yourself as an radiation expert and got caught lying. Then you claim that you are just a layman but you still know better than engineers and scientists. Apollo program has been accepted as real by relevant experts and historians. Now it's your responsibility to prove them wrong.

I imagine Orville and Wilbur was asked the same question.  My answer to such a profound question is I am not as susceptible to public opinion as the majority of people (Sheeple) are.

I feel like one of the Wright brothers as engineers from around the world told them they lacked the expertise and more qualified people had already determined that manned flight was not feasible.

Wright brothers didn't wave their hands or claim conspiracy against flying. They just made a working plane and proved their opponents wrong.

Lurky

[LunarOrbit]

I find it very interesting not a single one you gentlemen stopped for a moment to consider the implications of my allegations.  You immediately broke out your preordained rebuttals and condemnations without ever engaging the core precept.  Consider for just one moment and that AI am right.  Then what?  Play the devil's advocate or even better yet. refute the salient points of my concerns. 

Your argument would first have to make sense before I'd get to the point of asking myself "is he right?". Your argument does not make sense. One minute you're saying NASA is lying about the radiation, the next minute you're saying "I don't know if they're lying about the radiation... but I know they're lying about something!"

You don't HAVE an argument. You have only presented a vague distrust of NASA's claims, but no justification.

[timfinch]

My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  .470 mgy/day.  I contend this background varies inversely with solar activity within the confines of our galaxy.  If indeed my beliefs are correct then all travel within the galaxy and beyond would have as a consequence 470 mgy/day exposure because we lack the technology to shield GCR radiation.  How can there be any confusion about my position?  Is there anyone willing to challenge this position?

[Ranb]

I find it very interesting not a single one you gentlemen stopped for a moment to consider the implications of my allegations.

A former US Navy nuclear trained electrician has claimed that "sixties technology was wholly incapable" of sending a man to the moon and returning him to Earth alive.  I have considered the implications of your baseless allegations; they are meaningless for the most part.

  You immediately broke out your preordained rebuttals and condemnations without ever engaging the core precept.  Consider for just one moment and that I am right.  Then what?

You mean if there was actual evidence that the Apollo program was a hoax?  I would have to reconsider just how poorly I've evaluated the evidence I've seen for the moon landings

[timfinch]

Why concern yourself with the message, the messenger is more interesting....

[LunarOrbit]

I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.

My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  470 mgy/day.  I contend this background varies inversely with solar activity within the confines of our galaxy.  If indeed my beliefs are correct then all travel within the galaxy and beyond would have as a consequence 470 mgy/day exposure because we lack the technology to shield GCR radiation.  How can there be any confusion about my position?

Only one of these can be true:

1. NASA is telling the truth and the radiation in space is not pose an insurmountable obstacle for a short duration trip to the Moon
2. NASA is lying because the radiation in space is deadly and there is no way to protect the astronauts from it

You said you don't know if NASA is lying about the radiation, but if it posed such a serious risk that going to the Moon is impossible then NASA must be lying. So maybe now you can see why I think your argument is contradictory, poorly defined, and confusing.

Lying about the radiation fails the logic test. They would get caught, the lie would be exposed, and the "national pride" of the United States would be irreversibly tarnished. The idea that NASA would lie even knowing that they were guaranteed to get caught, and knowing how serious the consequences would be, is ridiculous.

To you, and many other conspiracy theorists, the radiation argument is star of the show, it's your "gotcha!" argument. But to me it's proof that Apollo happened as claimed because it's not something NASA has control over.

[JayUtah]

Why concern yourself with the message, the messenger is more interesting....

You have made yourself the message. You "contend" things, but pay no attention to factors that undermine those contentions.

[JayUtah]

My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  470 mgy/day.  I contend this background varies inversely with solar activity within the confines of our galaxy.  If indeed my beliefs are correct then all travel within the galaxy and beyond would have as a consequence 470 mgy/day exposure because we lack the technology to shield GCR radiation.  How can there be any confusion about my position?  Is there anyone willing to challenge this position?

The challenge is that your model, and the expectations drawn from it, are simplistic. You don't get to choose what form the challenge takes.

[Count Zero]

I am not sure NASA ever lied about radiation.  I am sure they lied about sending men to the moon.  If I had been in their place I would have lied too.  Billions of dollars wasted and national pride on the line.  I would have lied my ass off.  It was one thing to tell a lie and a whole different thing to believe a lie.  I choose not to believe this one.  The king has no clothes...

One of the many mistakes that hoax believers make is that they assume that the odds of performing an actual manned moon-landing would be likely to fail, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense.  Flying to the Moon is an engineering problem with known (or knowable) equipment requirements.  You need large, multi-stage rockets, a guidance system that can navigate there & back, a vehicle that can land and take off, and life support systems to keep your crew alive.  You can also send unmanned probes to measure the environment between here & there to help define your craft.  All of these can be built & tested in a methodical, step-by-step process. 

Everything is in the open.  Nobody has to be looking over their shoulder or dealing with attacks of conscience.  If they fail, the root causes can be found & fixed and they can try again.  No honor is lost because everyone knows it is damn difficult.  Even if the government decides it's not worth the cost to continue and pulls the plug, everyone knows it was a good try and at least we learned a lot in the effort.

On the other hand, one slip-up when perpetuating a hoax - one turncoat, one leaked document, one communications gaffe (you can't know who will be listening, or with what equipment), one special effect that's less than perfect - and you are the center of a national disgrace for all time.  America's credibility is shot and very senior officials in the government will be convicted of felony fraud and go to prison for years.  Don't forget that the secret has to be kept for all time:  No matter when it's found out, it will still be a world-wide public-relations storm that would make Iraqi WMDs look like an absent-minded goof.  It doesn't matter how old you are, you can still be put on trial.

For those who think we faked-it to show-up the Soviets, do you really think that an administration that couldn't cover-up a 3rd-rate hotel burglary could keep this secret from the KGB?  Do you think that America's mortal enemy would not use this as the ultimate proof before the entire world of capitalism's perfidy and corruption?

Don't forget that, as far as we knew, the Soviets were also going to land on the Moon, whether we made it or not.  They didn't cancel their program until 1976.  If we faked it and they did it for real, then who has the technological upper hand?

Any way you look at it, faking it would be more risky and less likely to succeed - with more dire cost to the nation in the event of failure - than actually digging-in, doing the work and going for real.

[Ranb]

My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  470 mgy/day.

In one of your earlier posts you said that the radiation level was .45 mgy/day; this would be about 1.9 mr/hr for us Navy nukes.

You were referring to the MSL-RAD device on one of the Mars Missions used to collect radiation data?  How did this collector compare to the ones developed in the 1960's for Apollo?  If you recall, the calcium fluoride TLD you were issued in the Navy had its limitations as well.  It could only indirectly measure neutron exposure and was shielded against low energy gamma.  It did not record any shallow dose beta/gamma or any alpha at all.

[timfinch]

Only one of these can be true:

1. NASA is telling the truth and the radiation in space is not pose an insurmountable obstacle for a short duration trip to the Moon
2. NASA is lying because the radiation in space is deadly and there is no way to protect the astronauts from it

You said you don't know if NASA is lying about the radiation, but if it posed such a serious risk that going to the Moon is impossible then NASA must be lying. So maybe now you can see why I think your argument is contradictory, poorly defined, and confusing.

Lying about the radiation fails the logic test. They would get caught, the lie would be exposed, and the "national pride" of the United States would be irreversibly tarnished. The idea that NASA would lie even knowing that they were guaranteed to get caught, and knowing how serious the consequences would be, is ridiculous.

To you, and many other conspiracy theorists, the radiation argument is star of the show, it's your "gotcha!" argument. But to me it's proof that Apollo happened as claimed because it's not something NASA has control over.


You are taking what I said out of context.  I believe that short trips into space in the absence of SPE's are survivable.  The unpredictability and the inability to shield them makes it Russian roulette to send men beyond the VAB.  I think NASA being aware of this faked the moon missions.  I believe the Apollo mission does reflect accurately LEO dmission doses.

[JayUtah]

I find it very interesting not a single one you gentlemen stopped for a moment to consider the implications of my allegations.  You immediately broke out your preordained rebuttals and condemnations without ever engaging the core precept.  Consider for just one moment and that I am right.  Then what?  Play the devil's advocate or even better yet. refute the salient points of my concerns. Make me feel obligated to apologize for my insolence.  Rub my nose in it.

Why would you think we haven't previously considered the implications of global conspiracy? You didn't invent the idea, and you're not the first person to propose it on this board. You're not even the twentieth. We've heard it all before.  And yes, you have been treated to a discussion of the implications, such as the political aspects. If you want to be treated with something other than typical rebuttals, you have to present more than the typical simplistic attempts at armchair astrophysics. The typical rebuttals are nevertheless valid.  Your argument is based on a bunch of naive (and unoriginal) assumptions arising from your lack of proper training and experience, and you display no interest in having those assumptions challenged or corrected.

[timfinch]

My position is crystal clear.  I contend all space outside of the earths magnetic field has a background GCR radiation of approximately  .470 mgy/day.

In one of your earlier posts you said that the radiation level was .45 mgy/day; this would be about 1.9 mr/hr for us Navy nukes.

You were referring to the MSL-RAD device on one of the Mars Missions used to collect radiation data?  How did this collector compare to the ones developed in the 1960's for Apollo?  If you recall, the calcium fluoride TLD you were issued in the Navy had its limitations as well.  It could only indirectly measure neutron exposure and was shielded against low energy gamma.  It did not record any shallow dose beta/gamma or any alpha at all.

An interesting question indeed.  The TLD readings of the sixties were skin dose readings that primarily measured electrons, muons and photons.  The conversion to Sieverts is via calculations and assumptions not in actual measurements.  The same is true in the MSL/RAD detectors.  Three different detectors are use and a compilation of the data is used to provide a dose rate. My bad.  I did drop the decimal point but I corrected the mistake.